What fools these mortals be
You know, if I really hated America, I’d be supporting George W. Bush for a third term in office. Take a look at what David Ignatius says the Bushies are cooking up in Wingnut Kitchen:
Above: Bush’s post-surge plan, diagrammed.
President Bush and his senior military and foreign policy advisers are beginning to discuss a “post-surge” strategy for Iraq that they hope could gain bipartisan political support. The new policy would focus on training and advising Iraqi troops rather than the broader goal of achieving a political reconciliation in Iraq, which senior officials recognize may be unachievable within the time available.
The revamped policy, as outlined by senior administration officials, would be premised on the idea that, as the current surge of U.S. troops succeeds in reducing sectarian violence, America’s role will be increasingly to help prepare the Iraqi military to take greater responsibility for securing the country.
“Sectarian violence is not a problem we can fix,” said one senior official. “The Iraqi government needs to show that it can take control of the capital.” U.S. officials offer a somber evaluation of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki: His Shiite-dominated government is weak and sectarian, but they have concluded that, going forward, there is no practical alternative.
Chillens, I want you to put on your thinkin’ caps and dissect the logic behind these statements:
1.) We’re giving up on political reconciliation between the Sunnis and Shiites.
2.) Instead, we’re going to focus on helping Maliki’s “Shiite-dominated” “sectarian” government “take control of the capital,” with the end goal of helping them “take greater responsibility for securing the country.”
And yet…
3.) “Sectarian violence is not a problem we can fix.”
So, ladies’n’gents, how do you suppose the sectarian, Shiite-dominated government will go about “securing the country?” Ding! You got it! Ethnic cleansing!
The new policy would seek to anchor future Iraqi security in a regional structure that would be a continuation of the “neighbors” talks begun this month at the Egyptian resort of Sharm el-Sheikh. To make that structure work, the administration is talking with Iran and Syria in what officials hope will become a serious dialogue about how to stabilize Iraq.
The post-surge policy would, in many ways, track the recommendations of the Baker-Hamilton report, which senior administration officials say the president now supports.
After he called it a “flaming turd” just months ago? Not likely.
It also reflects the administration’s recognition that, given political realities in Washington, some policy adjustments must be made. The goal is an approach that would have sufficient bipartisan support so it could be sustained even after the Bush administration leaves office in early 2009.
Translation: it’s going to contain a shitload of poison pills that will set the Democrats up for failure in 2008. It will be a dumb policy that the Dems will vote for, and when it fails, they’ll have only themselves to blame for supporting it. And I bet you anything the Dems are going to be dumb enough to take the bait.
Here’s a summary of the policy ideas the officials said are under discussion:
· Train Iraqi security forces and support them as they gain sufficient intelligence, logistics and transport capability to operate independently.
· Provide “force protection” for U.S. troops who remain in Iraq.
· Continue Special Forces operations against al-Qaeda, in the hope of gradually reducing suicide bombings and other terrorist attacks on the Iraqi government. “That’s the accelerator for sectarian violence,” said one official.
Y’know, al-Qaeda really have become America’s Emmanuel Goldstein. Anytime something bad happens anywhere, it simply must be al-Qaeda’s doing. Shiite-on-Sunni sectarian violence? Well shit, homey, they’d be bestest peeps if it weren’t for al-Qaeda! It’s all al-Qaeda! They do everything bad everywhere in the world! They bad! America strong! Bush good! Bush good!
· Focus U.S. activities on the two big enemies of stability and democracy in Iraq — al-Qaeda and Iranian-backed sectarian militias.
(Scratches head.)
David, earlier in your piece, you said that because our government believes that “sectarian violence is not a problem we can fix,” they’ve decided to put all their eggs in the basket of training and supporting Maliki’s sectarian, Shiite-dominated government. David, just who do you think is funding those goddamn sectarian Shiite militias in the first place? By the gods, does your editor actually read over your columns to make sure that they’re logically consistent?
· Ensure the near-term continuation of democracy in Iraq. That means supporting top-down reconciliation through a new oil law, new rules to make it easier for former Baath Party members to play a role in the new Iraq, provincial elections and changes to the Iraqi constitution to meet Sunni demands. It also means support for bottom-up reconciliation, such as the recent push against al-Qaeda by Sunni tribal leaders in Anbar province, and recent peace feelers from radical Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr.
Good God. David, at the very top of your piece you wrote, and I quote, “new policy would focus on training and advising Iraqi troops rather than the broader goal of achieving a political reconciliation in Iraq, which senior officials recognize may be unachievable within the time available.” Now you’re telling me our strategy would focus on reconciliation between the two. What’s more, you say that we’re considering taking “peace feelers” from Moqtada al-Sadr, the man whose Shiite sectarian militias you described as one of the “big enemies of stability and democracy in Iraq.” And what the hell does “the near-term continuation of democracy” even mean? Good lord, man, do you ask your sources any follow-up questions? They’re feeding you ideas that are completely contradictory!
The administration’s exploration of “Plan B” alternatives in Iraq tracks a similar discussion that has been taking place among top military leaders. The U.S. commander in Iraq, Gen. David Petraeus, recently gathered top counterinsurgency experts, such as Col. H.R. McMaster, in Baghdad for a critical review of the surge strategy. There’s a growing recognition in Baghdad, sources said, that the United States lacks a strong local partner because of the weakness and sectarian base of the Maliki government. In addition, the new head of Central Command, Adm. William Fallon, has publicly stated his view that the surge strategy is just “chipping away at the problem” and that “reconciliation isn’t likely in the time we have available.”
I just give up. This administration obviously has no idea what the hell it’s doing (shocking, I know). It’s clearly not communicating with its commanders on the ground, and it’s proposing goals that blatantly contradict one another. I don’t understand how we elected these people twice. It is too depressing to contemplate. I love you, America, but I’ll never forgive you for these past eight years.
The wild cards in this new effort to craft a bipartisan Iraq policy are the Republican and Democratic leaders, President Bush and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.
In other words, the wild card in crafting this new policy is every person who’s going to be involved in crafting the policy. That’s kick-ass analysis, Dave. I’m glad they pay you the big bucks. Maybe you can get a job as a sportscaster after you leave the Post and you can tell us fans that the “wild cards” that will determine the outcome of a baseball game are both teams’ pitchers and hitters. Hey, you’d be better than Joe Morgan at least.
They both say they want a sustainable, effective Iraq policy, but each is deeply entrenched in a partisan version of what that policy should be. America is in a nosedive in Iraq. Can these two leaders share the controls enough that Iraq will become a U.S. project, rather than George Bush’s war? There’s a bipartisan path out of this impasse, but will America’s leaders be wise enough to take it?
God I hope not. And do you know why, David? BECAUSE THE LEGISLATION YOU’VE DESCRIBED IN THE ABOVE PARAGRAPHS MAKES ABSOLUTELY NO GODDAMN SENSE. It doesn’t. Go back and look at it. It’s one giant, flagrant contradiction after another.
I swear to God, pundits at the Post are drawn like flies on shit to any bill that has “bipartisan” attached to it. You could propose a bill called the “Bipartisan Moses Act of 2007” that would dump mass quantities of locusts on people and would kill the first-born child of every American household, and Ignatius and Broder would be giving it a big thumbs-up-high-five-sexy-time all the way.
You could propose a bill called the “Bipartisan Moses Act of 2007″ that would dump mass quantities of locusts on people and would kill the first-born child of every American household, and Ignatius and Broder would be giving it a big thumbs-up-high-five-sexy-time all the way.
Hey, don’t give Joe Lieberman (I-Lie) any ideas, O.K.?
P.S. The British government has learned...
I don’t understand how we elected these people twice.
We didn’t, remember?
But in a reasonable world, it shouldn’t have even been close enough for them to steal.
Why don’t they just go for the ones proposed by the Iraqi government?
Oh. That extremely reconciling oil law. The “get the US bastards out, fergodssakes” clause. Sorry, wasn’t paying attention for a minute there.
Al-Qeda is the new Red.
Can these two leaders share the controls enough that Iraq will become a U.S. project, rather than George Bush’s war?
Well of course Bush can and should share the controls, as it were. He simply refuses to do so, being the petulant child and boy king that he is. Thus, our looming constitutional crisis, which will be deftly averted by the Democrats courageously caving in to his temper tantrum.
And what the hell does “the near-term continuation of democracy� even mean?
That the current Iraqi regime survive through November 2008.
“Who cares if in the mid or long term, it all crashes down.
That’s not my department,” says Wernher von Braun.
This Plan B sounds remarkably like what we were supposed to have been doing before the surge. Seems more like Plan A to me. And we all know how well that worked.
Haven’t we been trying to train the Iraqi military to take charge of the situation for the past three years? “We’ll sit down when they stand up”? When did this become a shift in thinking? And what is up with this “post-surge” buzzword that is suddenly all the rage?
That’s the problem with the Bush administration, they aren’t leaders, they are marketers. They are masters of putting the same shit in a different box, releasing it to the press in a big blitz, and fools like Ignatius lap it up (“Oh I just love how this label read ‘bipartisan’.”)
The tortured logic you correctly diagram is Ignatius trying to justify his foolish purchase to himself. One would think he would have the good sense to do this in private, but this is David Ignatius we are talking about.
I don’t understand how we elected these people twice.
Everything changed after Nine 1/2 Weeks.
But in a reasonable world, it shouldn’t have even been close enough for them to steal.
Remember the quality of the campaigns run against them.
In case you might be inclined to think that the Democrats have learned from the experience, note the bold way in which, since taking Congress, they have chosen to work to make the Bush administration look bad (though they’re perfectly capable of doing this on their own), rather actually changing things by, say, putting impeachment and defunding on the table.
Where is our new war czar in the pack of ‘wild cards’ developing this new plan?
I swear to god I think they know exactly what they are doing. The goal is to fucking stay there forever and to keep having a reason to stay. Why did we go there? To have a military presence there. Duh. If they keep making these idiotic and meaningless ‘policy shifts’ it will appear to enough of the American people that they are “trying to win,” when the only thing they’re trying to do is make it so that we have a great reason to stay there. And if a Democrat is elected and we leave and the shit hits the fan, then it will be the fault of the Democrat, not Bush. If a Democrat is elected, we leave, and the shit does not hit the fan and things somehow are better (long shot), then it will be because of Bush’s decision to ‘go on the offensive’ and remove Saddam Hussein that paved the way for a better Iraq (again, long shot). Either way, they win. So, once you realize that these people don’t give a shit how things are going in Iraq, it all starts to make sense.
Although it would be foolish to underestimate Emmanuel Goldstein and his insidious influence, I believe we cannot ignore the danger posed by his Number 2 men, Dan Collins & Pablo.
Re: “David, just who do you think is funding those goddamn sectarian Shiite militias in the first place?”
Actually, I heard a case made (by someone other than Cheney/Bush and their idolators) that Iran might (also) be helping the Sunnis. Theory being: Iran wants to be the dominant player in the Middle East. By supporting the Sunnis, albeit quietly, they prevent a Shiite “government” from being established, followed by some period of stability, etc., during which they might rival Iran’s influence in the region. [Of course, the “stability” would have come after the Sunnis are no longer a serious voice in the government, i.e. lots more dead Sunnis.]
Part of this scenario seems plausible, but I have a tough time believing Tehran would aid and abet the killing of Shiites in Iraq.
I should probably read Juan Cole more often, it might give me more of a clue.
I love you, America, but I’ll never forgive you for these past eight years.
I loved America at the moments when the tits of Lady Liberty were perky and we endeavored to partner for glorious tomorrows. I loved America when they sagged and got all wrinkly with the flaws of an aging democracy. I even loved America after corporate induced cancer robbed the Lady’s breasts but her torch remained lit for others who suffered.
But when she started putting out for the bastard sons of Sam Houston and pawned liberty’s torch for the inbred cockroaches of Krawford and Kennebunkport, my heart wandered and became enamored with more than the ephemeral physical beauties that had provoked my adolescent ardor.
It’s not America or the Lady that I reject. It’s the 17% of its total citizenry who sold their souls to elevate Shit to greater power than Shinola that made me cranky and sent me running to Old Betsy to get the little fuggers offa my lawn.
Them Americans is what makes America so flaccid that it couldn’t get a stiffy with a splint in their presence. They’re accomplices to murderers and all manner of lowlife.
And I’ll save my willy for the sane 16 percent, and for greater percentages around the globe, the borderless libertines who refuse aid and comfort to royalists bearing Shit theologies.
that bipartisan shit really takes the cake. I am literally speechless.
top down…democracy…top down…democracy…top down…democracy.
i think mr. ignatius doesn’t really know what that word means. but really, the whole game is given away at the end of his piece. you see, mr. ignatius has no particular opinion on the ultimate rightness or wrongness of fighting pre-emptive wars of imperial aggrandizement, even though this is probably the central conundrum of modern democracy (and by modern i mean of the past 250 years, just ask jefferson about imperial adventures) and even though he has some of the most valuable op space in the world, he has no point of view on this subject at all. rather, he has the point of view that every story has two sides, there is no wrong now is no right*, it’s all just how you look at things. and that’s why bi-partisanship is just total utter steaming ordeur. because, mr. ignatius, there is a solution to the problem–it’s called get the fuck out and do it now. and guess what–it’s “right”, as opposed to staying, which is “wrong”. so, douchebag, your every word is fucking wasted to get to your magical fairy-dust “bipartisan” IOMEFWIONFofasnanfwepnaef
sorry, i can’t take it anymore. i hate this nihilist post-modernists so much, all the more because they don’t even know that’s what they are. they turn everything they touch to shit.
I just want to say that that Lego picture is awesome.
When I read this column this morning, all I could think was, “What the hell is new in this crap?” It’s like stupid Pizza Hut, trying to claim that a pizza with the dough shaped a little differently is something new when it’s actually the same crappy ingredients, or ditto for stupid Taco Bell, rearranging the same tired components into another food product. Bleh.
“top-down reconciliation through a new oil law”
OMFG. Exxon/Mobile’s raping of Iraq for oil is going to bring about reconciliation?
On second thought, it just might. Sunni, Shia, & Kurds might just come to hate the US so much that they set aside their differences to kick our ass all the way back to North America.
The treatment of the oil law in the US press is one of the most disgraceful acts of propaganda I’ve ever witnessed. The oil law is not about “revenue sharing”. It is about using the debt accumulated by Saddam as a club to force the Iraqis to allow US oil companies to suck the oil, the profits from the oil, and even the jobs at the oil wells out of the hands of the Iraqis. This is imperialist rapine at it’s very worst, and still the US press portrays this steaming turd of an oil law as frankincense and myrrh. One can only hope that the Iraqis are able to appreciate who is propagandizing the looting of Iraq and direct their response appropriately.
[…] that neatly dissects the massive shortcomings of the latest schemes for anyone interested (though Brad at Sadly, No! really gets at the Ignatius column as well). As interesting as the substance of the Life After The […]